Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[QLD] Report on the inquiry into Q-RIDE

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Valik, Jun 28, 2007.

  1. Shame for one of my first posts to be bearing such bad news but

    Long story short - If you plan on getting your license in QLD then better do it soon. Recommendations have been made to make it much more difficult. Read on...

    Travelsafe Committee Reports on QRIDE
    The Parliamentary Travelsafe Committe today tabled its report on the Inquiry into QRIDE.
    The committee has made 24 recommendations aimed at tightening up the popular motorcycle licensing system.

    Report is here
    (sorry I can't post links yet)

  2. In principal I don't have issues with making riders more competent before they go out on the road and for newbies to get experience before they get on powerful bikes (although I am trying to avoid this for the sake of purchase convenience).

    One of the suggestions they make is making the bike license separate from the car license for the sake of statistics and in the process making riders pay seperate fees is complete bullshit.
  3. Just read through the summary of recommendations...
    I'll read the detail later, but to be honest I can't see much wrong with it. (at this stage, but the devil is often in the detail)

    LAMS is a good idea, compulsory pre-learners, pre-provisional courses are a good idea, and used in other states. I wish they were introduced for ALL road users.

    Making sure that the trainers are competent... well that should be happening now, it's common sense.

    From what I've seen since being in QLD, It's just too easy to get a bike license, bike riders are NOT getting the skills needed to stay alive on the road.

    Actually, that goes for the car drivers as well.
  4. Saw this the other week. Looks like this might start becoming the standard set of principals that many of the states will adopt. It seems like they are almost defining motorcycle riding as a seperate licence to a car.
    Eg. you have to start from first prinicpals.

    This is almost sounding like the old firearm rolling restrictions that occured from the late 90's onwards.

    First they make licencing harder. Second, make you take your bike in for annual inspections for which they will make 50% fail. Next restrict cargo, pillions and make you wear full body leathers head to toe even to go to the corner shop.

    In effect they slowly make it more and more a pain in the butt to hold your motorbike licence and ride. Eventually people will give it up out of too much hassel.

    thats how the phase stuff out!
  5. I saw a bit about this on TV the other day. A lot of it I dont mind, like tougher testing, but there were bits and pieces aimed at keeping occasional riders off the road that would just stuff it up for everyone else.

    Example: One of the percieved problems (and it's prob right) are that some people have their bike licence and dont ride. Then when they do jump on a bike they're dangerous. Solution? Charge extra for having a bike licence every year so more people choose to just get rid of their bike licence. Not much good for us though.
  6. Totally agree. Having very recently obtained my license through QRIDE, I commented to my parter at the time that it is too easy. Day 1 of my course I had ridden around the training ground weaving in and out of witches hats etc for about 4 hours (having absolutely NO previous riding experience) and was told if I wanted to go on the road ride after that 4 hours that I WOULD get my license. Myself and another girl on the course opted out of the road ride as we didn't feel confident enough to do it.

    I am 30 years old, have been driving for 13 years and would go as far as to say I am a VERY good driver. But there was NO WAY at that stage that I should have been out on a road on a bike unsupervised. I had the good sense to opt to go back for another days training before I attempted going out on the road.

    One has to wonder if a 18 or 19 year old guy with a serious case of Godplex, who is not inclined to spend another $150 per day for however many days they need and just wants to ride a bike NOW would have the sensibility to do the same.

    Also, not sure if it is the same in other states (I don't believe it is), but in QLD, you can go from NO riding experience at all to doing a one day QRIDE course and walking away with an open, unrestricted licence. There was an inexperienced rider on my second day who insisted he wanted to go straight for his unrestricted licence. They popped him on a 600, which he laid down twice during abovementioned witches hat circling. He then opted to go out on the road ride in the afternoon, and went on to drop the bike during that.

    Fortunately they had the good sense not to give him his license (they did offer him a restricted licence though :roll: ), but he shouldn't have been out on the ride in the first place IMO.

    Long winded, but I think the changes are definitely needed.
  7. your qride provider was shit then, don't group all qride providers into the same bunch...
  8. So instead of being rude, why not elaborate a bit? I wasn't aware that these procedures vary between qride providers? Which provider WOULDN'T give a licence to a person with a grand total of 5 or 6 hours riding experience? Are there other providers that require more than some 'round the training ground exercises and then a half hour road ride?

    Don't get me wrong, the trainers I had were excellent (in their techniques anyway) - my point was, it IS too easy to get a bike licence in QLD. If the qride provider I used broke the rules/law, by all means, go ahead and enlighten me. Otherwise I stand by my opinion that the rules need to be tougher.
  9. Valid points....

    If they are "shortcutting" existing rules, then this need to be addressed. Ongoing audits and QA checks of the Qride provider, as suggested in the review, would help that.

    If they are within the rules, then that just underlines our point. The only reason we have rider/driver training is to prepare people for the road, to ensure everyone is playing by the same rules, for everyones sake. It's bad enough on the roads now, without letting people into the madness of modern day traffic without the pre-requisite skills.

    Despite having held a full M-cycle license in the past, when I returned to riding, I went through the whole pre-learner course, restricted to 250cc learner rider, "P's" course and test, and even though I got an exemption to the restrictions as a "mature" rider during P's, I stayed on my beloved little Across for nearly the full year anyway. I'm glad I did, the two compulsory training courses (one day each) showed me I had much to learn about riding bikes on "modern" roads, with the incredibly bad drivers around you.
  10. The anti-motorcycle attitude of their "advisors" in Qld has been known for a long time.

    There's some quotes here from Prof Narelle Haworth I posted well over a year ago...


    Narelle Haworth from QUT produced that dreadful (and discredited) report for the TAS govt on licencing and training. Even though it was discredited the Qld Govt picked it up and used it.

    Her agenda is to "reduce exposure". Her method of doing that is to have fewer riders. :evil:
  11. Some pretty unconstructive feedback there. He wasn't saying the riders or the instructors were sh!t.

    I totally agree, the system is way to easy to get a license. The more you have to show competance before getting on the road, the better.
  12. You poor deluded person... :LOL:

    We had the temerity to suggest that moving the "safety" levy from registrations to licences (and reducing it) would possibly be a good idea and might (possibly) address that issue. Bear in mind we didn't actually say that this should be done - all we said was that it might be worth looking at.

    So far we've been pilloried in every motorcycle mag (except 2 wheels) :LOL:

    Boris from AMCN even threatened physical violence... :twisted:

    Rider comments and emails have been 10:1 in favour of it though. :LOL:
  13. You're really charging ahead in the diplomacy stakes. The pricks who can't get fired seem to forget that fundamentally they still should service providers.
  14. The latest one was Pete Thoeming (the Bear) in Aust Road Rider.

    He says it could have been designed to hurt the motorcycle industry as that's were lots of new riders are coming from. Mind you he was quoting someone who has become totally irrelevant to motorcycling...

    Funny though how it was an industry person who sent me a copy of the article and didn't think the suggestion was such a bad idea :LOL:
  15. sorry should of gone on more, ridesmart for example took the following format with me (RE license)

    1st day beginners day - 3 people
    4 hours
    introduced to bike and shown various functions, asked more about our history of bikes, cars etc.
    lots of verbal stuff
    slowly took off lots of practice in 1st gear, went around the parking lot, through slalom eventually etc.
    then practiced 1st and 2nd gear
    did a circle that included slalom alot of times till getting used to it
    then practiced emergency braking, swerving, figure 8, hillstarts. slalom
    end of day

    2nd day experienced day - 3/4 people
    watch the video which i beleive everyone watches (what to look for when in traffic etc.)
    then redid all the emergency braking, swerving, figure 8, hillstarts, slalom and was tested on all of them
    then went for a 1.5hour-2 hour road ride that included highway riding
    (thankfully due to some prior experience and due to the fact i was only going for RE license i was passed at this time - the people who were going for R license did another day which i beleive is the same as my 2nd day except without the video again

    With this format it makes it impossible both for learners to go under 8.5 hours and thus for them to have insufficient skills imho.


    I would however like to make another point, i've read the full pdf and they seem to be ignoring the possibility of experienced riders (either unlicensed or RE going to R) using qride to just be mainly tested on their skills rather then learning them from the base up.

    Also, the learner license for a period of 6months is retarded, people who take qride over qsafe are mainly people who don't have access to a bike at all - thus making this period useless (I know i had my learner license for 1.5 years before even touching a bike).
  16. In most states in Australia, you can do a one day course and be on the road - with an L plate albeit. But it's a catch 22 - stating you are not ready to ride on the road, because you have not got enought experience riding on the road. You have to out there sometime. Unless you have a very long driveway your first drive on your L's in the car would have also been on the road.

    QRIDE is a competency based test. If you can demonstrate the competencies (skills in operating and handling the motorcycle), you pass. It is not focused on hours experience, confidence or potential godplexes, just demonstrable competencies. Q-RIDE defers knowledge of road-rules/situations to the fact that the licence holder has already done so in their car (not having a full licence would see you with similar restrictions to your L's).

    QLD has been hamstrung by the fact that learners must legally be accompanied by a licenced motorcyclist (amazing but true) ie, it has been impossible to get experience on the road unless you knew someone who rode, or paid for lessons. That meant not enough people were getting real experience on the road.

    The main difference is Q-RIDE is effectively a learner test (there is no practical test for bike L's in QLD, for a car licence holder), but you are not left with a 250 limit. Bad thing? As we all know, the existing crop of 250's out there are arguably some of the most dodgy bikes on the road. Having the choice of getting a new 600cc bike with modern engineering and safety features makes sense. I don't see too many people advocating 1.5 litre cars from the 70's would be safer than putting a new learner driver in a new camry with airbags.

    All in all, Q-RIDE was developed and recommened largely in consultation motorcycle intstructors - the people who assess the skills of the riding public day in day out.

    Getting confidence and experience is ultimately the responsibility of the rider, and it's the same in most states.
  17. When you look at the "best practice" allegations of that paper the real reasons come out. Needless to say the "best practice" is only the opinion of MUARC and specifically Narelle Haworth - it's not supported by anyone else.

    No exemptions from licensing, training or testing requirements for older applicants
    Unknown effects on crash risk and crash severity. Older riders need to develop riding-specific skills. May make licensing less attractive, which leads to a reduction in riding.

    Minimum age for motorcycle licences higher than for car licences
    Consistent with graduated licensing principles. Crash risk has been demonstrated to decrease with age among young novices. Increasing the minimum age would also eliminate riding and therefore crashes for riders below this age.

    Compulsory training
    Small reduction in crash risk. Unknown reduction in crash severity. Ensures a basic level of competency. May make licensing less attractive, which leads to a reduction in riding

    Increased roadcraft training at both learner and provisional licence stages
    Longer and potentially more expensive training may deter some applicants which leads to a reduction in riding.

    Off-road testing to obtain learner licences, on-road testing to obtain provisional licences.
    Unknown effects on crash risk and crash severity. Ensures a basic level of competency.May make licencing less attractive leading to a reduction in riding

    There's a certain pattern here. Let's introduce everything we can (with unknown effects on safety in several cases) that leads to a reduction in riding... :evil:
  18. Can you please tell me (because I honestly don't know), what restrictions are placed on L platers in other states? In QLD, having a learners licence doesn't appear to be worth the paper it is written on - you answer five (stupid) questions and bingo, Learners permit. Which as you point out, does not permit you to ride on the road unless accompanied by a fully licenced rider. I guess by being 'not ready to ride on the road' what I meant was not ready to ride on the road on my own. Sure you need to get the experience, but more importantly you need to get it safely.

    Just seems a bit silly to me that after a one day course ANYONE can get out on the road unsupervised with no restrictions bar engine capacity. Sure, there may be *some* people that are perfectly capable of going out on the road alone with no further instruction after 5 hours of 'practice' but in my humble opinion, most aren't. I wasn't. But I was given the opportunity to do so anyway.

    Yep, my first drive in a car on my L's was also on a road, but it was in a vehicle with a qualified instructor and dual controls. Much safer than my first ride alone on a bike.

    And that's my point, the 'competency based test' is not stringent enough. Obviously its not focussed on hours experience, and nor should it be - while I don't think 5 hours is enough for most, I also understand that whatever nominal 'hours' required varies from rider to rider. But surely confidence has to come into it somewhere... if I know within myself that I am not ready to be out on the road (because I know I don't have the skills and abilities), then surely that should be obvious to a qualified instructor?? When you go for a test for your provisional car licence, you go driving one on one with a tester who examines your individual abilities - if you fcuk up, you lose points. Lose too many points and you fail. You don't go out with one instructor driving a car in front of 5 learners in their cars and gives them all their licences because they managed to keep up and not have a collision. IMHO, that would be the equivalent of the Qride 'assesment'.

    And I agree that people are not getting enough real experience on the road before being given a licence - I think thats my whole point. But I don't think the answer is to lessen restrictions to get more inexperienced riders on the road - the answer is to make testing tougher and force more people to pay for lessons, or (and yes I see the irony here) fork out to do more whole day training courses like Qride.

    Well, if like most people you get your restricted licence, you are left with a 250cc limit. If you get your opens straight away, then yep, no restrictions. But yeah, I do think not having a mandatory period on your restricted licence is a bad thing. I could be wrong here (and I don't profess to know a lot about bikes at all), but all the 'engineering and safety features' in the world aren't going to help you if you can't deal with the power your bike has. If I jump on a 600, it doesn't matter if it has all the safety features in the world - a bit of a moot point if I am 10x more likely to stack it in the first place.

    Cars on the other hand, I do know a bit about. Honest question, is comparing a common 250cc learners bike (a ZZR for example) to a common 600 (I can't give an example because I don't know any! But just something that is popular) really the same as comparing a 70-something 1.5L Mazda to a current model 2.4L Camry? I mean, the Camry really isn't a classic example of a high performance car is it? I wouldn't say a Learner has a much bigger chance of being in a prang in the Camry over the Mazda. And yep, they would be safer in the Camry, but as I pointed out above, its a whole different ball game with bikes isn't it?

    Totally agree. But there has to be minimum standards, and at the moment I just don't feel they are high enough.
  19. i guess my qride experience was quite different to those posted here, and those of what might be the majority of riders......

    i did get my licence through qride - on the basis of it being 'competency-based' and that i had to prove my competence to the satisfaction of my instructors.

    i had two instructors - both were experienced riders and qualified driver-trainers for cars, buses, trucks and bikes.

    i took nearly three months at the rate of two hours per week. this was more like the format of that used for getting a car licence with the only difference being that i was continually assessed by my instructors rather than doing a test with a department of transport assessor. and even if i was assessed as competent at a specific skill, i still was expected to practise and demonstrate that skill in subsequent sessions.

    i decided to do my qride through a driving school rather than one of the other qride providers because i knew that there was no way as a complete non-rider that i could possibly be competent after only one weekend.....

    it also meant that i got to ride in various conditions - if the road was wet, i still rode, if it rained during the session - too bad i still rode. the only thing i didn't experience was night riding.

    i haven't read the travelsafe report so i cant comment on the specifics. but it will be interesting to see how long it takes for the politicians to decide what they want to do about the recommendations.